Giuliani 'Unacceptable' for President, Conservatives Say

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani enjoys "a lot of good will" from Republicans from his handling of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but his stance on social issues like abortion and gun control make him an unacceptable candidate in the 2008 presidential election, according to conservative analysts.

Giuliani, who announced Monday that he has filed papers to form an exploratory committee as the first step towards a White House run, is "absolutely unacceptable under any circumstances" as a presidential candidate, Colleen Parro, executive director of the Republican National Coalition for Life, told Cybercast News Service.

"The core values of the Republican Party with respect to life issues -- which is where our main concern is -- and the issues of the homosexual movement, etc., cause his candidacy for the nomination to just be dead in the water," she said.

Giuliani has described himself as "pro-choice" and said he would not support a ban on partial-birth abortions. He promoted gun control programs and civil unions for same-sex partners during his two terms as New York City mayor.

While serving in that post, Giuliani saw his private life become a regular subject of media scrutiny, especially in 2000, when he announced at a press conference that he was seeking a separation from his second wife without first telling her of his decision.

"Despite Giuliani's charm and his obvious leadership abilities, as far as social and cultural issues are concerned, not only his personal life but his public views make him unacceptable," Parro said.

Supporters of a Giuliani bid launched a group a year ago called Draft Rudy Giuliani for President.

Co-founder Nicholas Tyszka said in a statement this week that, "with the current climate [of divisiveness] in Washington," Giuliani would be an excellent nominee, as "he has such a broad base of appeal, even cutting across political lines."

The group, whose other co-founder is veteran Republican political consultant Allen Fore, said that "America needs and wants this great man to lead our nation."

"Named Time Magazine's 'Person of the Year' in 2001, Rudy Giuliani has been a proven leader during one of the toughest periods in American history," the organization's website states.

"Giuliani exemplifies leadership, courage and compassion," it says. "Rudy Giuliani has dedicated his professional life to serving the United States, including assistant attorney general in the U.S. Justice Department under President Reagan and as the crime-fighting U.S. attorney in the state of New York.

"He has an unrivaled record of honesty and integrity, always putting the people's interest above politics," the website continues. "His service as mayor of New York City, particularly after the devastating terrorist attacks against our country on September 11, 2001, made him America's mayor. Now it's time to make him America's president."

Although forming an exploratory committee does not guarantee that an individual will run for president, Giuliani's announcement Monday drew a quick response from the Democratic National Committee:

"It's unclear whether or not Rudy Giuliani will be able to just 'explain away' the fact that he's consistently taken positions that are completely opposite to the conservative Republican base on issues they hold near and dear," said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney in a press statement.

"Throughout his career, Giuliani has tried to paint himself as a moderate, but now that he's vying for his party's nomination, will he undergo an extreme makeover in an attempt to cozy up to the far right?" Finney asked.

The DNC also issued a speedy response after Sen. John McCain made a similar announcement on Sunday.

Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, told Cybercast News Service that "it's going to be virtually impossible for Giuliani to woo voters who put the Second Amendment and family values as their top issues."

However, Giuliani "clearly has a lot of good will with Republicans, and his goal should be to shore up his conservative credentials on the issues of federal spending and anti-terrorism," Darling said.

Since he was mayor of New York City during 9/11, Giuliani "can trumpet anti-terrorism as one of his major policies. But he also needs to talk about limiting the federal government and restricting out-of-control federal spending so he can shore up support among conservatives who care about pocketbook issues," Darling said.

While acknowledging that Giuliani is "a presumptive front-runner" for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, Darling said the former mayor is enjoying good poll numbers "merely because he has high name recognition."

Strong approval figures don't guarantee victories when the party's primaries begin, Darling noted.

"Just ask [early 2004 Democratic front-runner] Howard Dean about that," he said.

"What is the point of political involvement if the RINOs get their way and we are given the choice of less socialistic candidates (Romney, McCain, Giuliani) or more socialistic ones (Hillary Clinton, Gore, Kerry)?"

Conversely, what would be the point for me to engage in political debate if the Conservatives got their way on everything? I happen to agree with a lot of what social conservatives have to offer, but not to the extent where I'm not willing to compromise where the opportunity presents iteself. Why there should be an argument over compromise or pragmatism is beyond me. I would vote for a Bible-Thumper in a heartbeat if I was assured that doing so would not mean that other important issues, like national security and fiscal restraint, were not forgotten in the rush to frog march the abortionists to the ovens, and trample all over marital rights in the melee to be seen as "doing something" for the cause of Life.

The problem I have with a certain flavor of conservatism is that many have a great deal of difficlty sperating their politics from their religion, sometimes even to the point where the religion becomes the politics. There are issues we can all agree on, and why shouldn't it be possible to advance together in areas where that common cause exists, while agreeing to disagree on everything else?

The problem, I guess, is that there are personal issues which folks are just not willing to compromise on. I understand this and I think I can live with that, if you can. Perhaps if more took this attitude, both sides woiuldn' feel as if the other was cramming something down their throats against their wills.

"If the RINOs shut conservatives out of the Republican Party, we will face a bleak future"

The exact opposite is also true. Soewhere in between is a happy medium, but we certainly will never reach i if we automatically discount what people have to say based on the fact that they once wore a dress as a gag. This is exaclty what is happening vis-a-vis Guliani in many cases.

I know he's socially "liberal" (and this improper usage of the term is annoying me mightily because it is not correct), but atripping that aside, what do you see? Having lived under his regime, I saw lower taxes, smaller government, cleaner streets, less crime, and on Spet 11th, not just a Mayor "doing his job", but a city in which the fire and police departments and average citizens willingly sacrificed their lives to save their fellow citizens.I can promise you that had a 9/11-type event occurred during the Beame-Carey-Koch-Dinkins years, no such responsibility for our fellow man, or reasonably efficient and dedicated public servants, would have been on display.

"Our political system makes a viable, competitive third party a near impossibility."

John McCain made it arguably worse. And somehow, some here consider him the next best thing to Franklin and Jefferson.

"Real Americans might as well abandon politics and look out for themselves and their loved ones as best as they can."

Do this and then you surrender the right to join the debate and perhaps shape or direct it. You certainly surrender your right to complain about the aftermath. I'm not happy about the system either, but when we censor ourselves and then proceed to eat our own, we're not making any headway towards fixing it.

The message, since the man announced the formation of the committee, has been: he's far too liberal socially for most of "us" to stand, therefore, he can't POSSIBLY have anything to add to the debate.

Who has said he has nothing to add to the debate, and what debate is that? What conservatives ARE saying is that we won't support him for a presidential run. And many have stated facts supporting that conclusion, quoting Guiliani's own words.

Teh attack is on Gulianin the MAN and not Guliani the philosophy because he hasn't had the chance to make the philosophy known!

Guliani the philosophy? What the heck is that? He's made plenty of public statements that reveal his philosophy and his position on issues. Those statements are being quoted to support the conclusion that conservative won't support him for President.

And it was YOU that accused me of accusing those who demand moral and ideological obedience of being Nazis.

Nope. I replied to your 'lock step' comment that the phrase 'lock step' usually is an accusation of collaborating with Nazism & I asked if that was your meaning. IOW, I gave you an opportunity to clarify, deny, or explain. You've chosen none of those options.

First off, I am not particularly anti-Giuliani. My criticism is directed at all three of the most visible contenders for the Republican Presidential nomination. Romney and McCain are also unacceptable.

There are other problems with the GOP separate from the three most prominent contenders. I am not happy with the selection of Trent Lott, whose voting record is basically conservative but who has shown little stomach for fighting the Democrats. Nor am I pleased with the choice of Mel Martinez as chairman of the RNC, whose first public statement since his appointment called for the back door amnesty program supported by the Administration. The effect of this program will place 12 (or perhaps more) million illegals on the path to citizenship. Like it or not, immigrants to this country, back to the days of the Scots-Irish two centuries ago, have mostly been Democrats, a party that, even before it became socialist, was the party of the "little guy." I don't think we have the luxury of waiting two to three generations in the hope that they will eventually assimilate into American society and become conservative.

The Christian Right has too readily embraced "compassionate conservatism", which is essentially big government programs used for "family friendly" purposes. They have also paid too little attention to other issues not under the purview of their social agenda. I have read a post on FR by an Oklahoma supporter of Giuliani who was disgusted when she and others went to the state legislature to obtain more funds to fight rampant wildfires in the Sooner State. They were treated instead to a prolonged debate about banning pro-homosexual books in the children's section of the Oklahoma City library. These social conservatives clearly had their priorities wrong!

Despite my misgivings about many on the Christian Right, your comparison of these people to the Nazis (the rush to frog march the abortionists to the ovens) is ridiculous. Prior to Roe v. Wade, the act of abortion was not a capital crime, but generally was treated as a misdemeanor or a low level felony. There are pro-life advocates that support making abortion a capital crime, but they are largely people like Gary DeMar and Randall Terry, who are associated with the Reconstructionist movement, a Calvinist splinter group rejected by most evangelicals and even most conservative Reformed believers. There are also a few advocates of this position that are associated with the radical traditionalist faction of Catholicism, a group rejected by most traditionalist and conservative Catholics. On the evangelical side, most of the prominent Christian Right figures (LaHaye, Robertson, Falwell, Dobson) are not even Calvinists, much less Reconstructionists. The same could be said for Catholic pro-life advocates, who regard the "rad trads" as heretics or schismatics.

What opponents to social conservatives have done is a type of reverse McCarthyism, not unlike Clinton's tactics in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, blaming conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh for the militia movement with which Timothy McVeigh was associated.

Like it or not, the rise of the Christian Right in the late 1970s was instrumental in tipping the political scales in this country toward the GOP. Since the stock market crash of 1929, the Republicans had been the minority party. The move of millions of white evangelical voters in the South and the Lower Midwest away from the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and FDR brought Reagan to power in 1980 and 1984, caused the 1994 Congressional elections to become a rout of Democrats, and facilitated the younger Bush in both his runs for President. If they go away because they are scorned or just lose interest, the GOP will return to the permanent minority status it held between 1930 and 1980.

Since the New Deal, there has been a sort of bipartisan dance where the Democrats push new legislation, invariably pro-big government and, since 1970, increasingly pro-immorality and anti-defense. When they gain power, Republicans do not repeal the Democrats' legislation, except in the area of defense. Eisenhower did not close down the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; even Reagan failed to abolish the Department of Education. Some GOP Presidents, notably Nixon and the younger Bush, actually push their own big government agenda, such as wage and price controls and the expansion of Medicare.

If this cycle is not broken in the next few years, the nation will become increasingly socialist. Under a Hillary Clinton administration or one headed by any of the three RINOs (particularly Romney, who pushed a state level socialization of medical care plan), and a Democrat/RINO majority in Congress, America will be saddled with British/Canadian style socialist medicine, effectively placing one-sixth of the U.S. economy directly under Washington's thumb. Add to this agenda the implementation of the Kyoto Treaty, "hate crime" laws, the Fairness Doctrine, imposition of free speech restrictions on the Internet, etc., none of which I see Giuliani, McCain, and Romney resisting, and America will be well on the way with the other Western democracies to national suicide. Our death will be at our own hands, not at that of Muslim radicals or Communist powers, although they may accelerate the death process.

This is no time to compromise, and, humanly speaking, the time is short. The modern conservative movement is about 55 years old, and it has not accomplished William Buckley's stated goal: the thwarting of the liberal agenda. To be sure, the conservative factions need to be unified, and Christian conservatives in particular need to divorce themselves from so-called big government conservatism and inattention to economic matters. Without a short-term reversal of the longstanding movement toward socialism, moral degeneracy, and loss of national sovereignty, this nation is headed toward disaster. The only rational response is then every man for himself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.